[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B839103.2060901@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:25:39 +0800
From: Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>
Subject: Re: [regression] cpuset,mm: update tasks' mems_allowed in time (58568d2)
on 2010-2-23 6:00, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>> If you have a concurrent reader without any synchronisation, then what
>> stops it from loading a word of the mask before stores to add the new
>> nodes and then loading another word of the mask after the stores to
>> remove the old nodes? (which can give an empty mask).
>>
>
> Currently nothing, so we'll need a variant for configurations where the
> size of nodemask_t is larger than we can atomically store.
>
Sorry, Could you explain what you advised?
I think it is hard to fix this problem by adding a variant, because it is
hard to avoid loading a word of the mask before
nodes_or(tsk->mems_allowed, tsk->mems_allowed, *newmems);
and then loading another word of the mask after
tsk->mems_allowed = *newmems;
unless we use lock.
Maybe we need a rw-lock to protect task->mems_allowed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists